This website is both my personal learning project and my contribution in the struggle to confront the ongoing attacks on rational science and objective learning, that are the hallmarks of the faith-based "skeptics" movement. ~ You'll find a collection of articles and authoritative scientific sources, along with my own essays and in-depth critiques of various denialist writings. ~ Hopefully a resource for the busy, yet discerning student ;-) Feel free to copy and pass along any of the following.

10 - The Shield and the Sword The IPCC boasts about peer-reviewed studies the same way it boasts about transparency. We're told we should trust the Climate Bible because it isn't based on just any research - but on peer-reviewed research. This is intended to wow us. According to the marketing spin, the world knows human-caused climate change is underway because the IPCC has consulted mountains of peer-reviewed scientific papers.

~ ~ ~

Why would an investigative journalist start a chapter with such dripping contempt, if not to play up to her audience's preconceptions? She's doing political theater not journalism.

Incidentally IPCC was organized expressly to collect and share the science - they don't pretend to be God as Donna wants you to believe, after all, everyone knows the science is constantly moving forward.

Furthermore, that science originates from throughout the world and it has been disseminated through many other venues.

The IPCC did not create the man-made global warming "consensus" it's the weight of the evidence which has driven that "consensus."Speaking of consensus - here's some information Donna the "investigative" journalist will never share with you:

Journalists fell for this hook, line, and sinker. Seth Borenstein, a science writer with the Associated Press, covers the IPCC extensively. Because he works for a newswire service, the stories he writes often appear on the front pages of national newspapers as well as in numerous smaller publications. During the year 2007 Borenstein repeatedly told his readers that the IPCC relies on peer-reviewed scientific literature.The science editor of the Times of London also did so. So has The Economist magazine, Australia's publicly-funded broadcaster, the bulletin of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and Ireland's Independent newspaper.

~ ~ ~

Who's kidding whom, look at that list of scientific societies who have investigated these climate questions for themselves.

Only a committed conspiracist can conjure such a fantasy. It's just that the real world is what it is. It doesn't care about our economic desires.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In none of these instances did the journalist mention that peer review in no way ensures truth - or that it is often perfunctory in nature. That would have undermined the reason for alluding to it in the first place - which was to make the IPCC appear authoritative.

~ ~ ~

The thing is that Donna has gone way overboard here -

peer review is not often perfunctory and simply because she claims it and has a couple cherry-picked opinions, it doesn't count as evidence.

Of course, it isn't like all is perfect as this more objective WIKI article details:

Donna's attitude is incredibly one-sided. She only looks for weakness and incidents of failure (and yes, there have been some), But Donna, hyper-inflates them while refusing to examine any and all counter-weighting evidence.

Her constantly reducing complex issues into melodramatic cartoons might play up to her audience, but it's not journalism and it certainly does nothing to help educate us about the actual state of the peer review process.

But that's only the beginning of the peer review tale. Bursting with bravado, this spoiled child of an organization pushed the envelope still further. In its zeal to persuade us that its findings are credible, the IPCC has spent years claiming it relies only on peer-reviewed literature.

~ ~ ~

Donna, this sort of language reflects poorly on your own intellect. We need to learning, not do theater. The IPCC guidelines are clear.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In 2008, IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri addressed a committee of the North Carolina legislature. Here's what he said to those assembled law-makers:

…we carry out an assessment of climate change based on peer-reviewed literature, so everything that we look at and take into account in our assessments has to carry [the] credibility of peer-reviewed publications, we don't settle for anything less than that.

In 2009 a journalist asked Pachauri whether the IPCC's next report would take into account a discussion paper issued by India's environment ministry that questioned the idea that Himalayan glaciers are endangered by climate change. Pachauri's response was arrogantly dismissive. The "IPCC studies only peer-review science," he said. "Let someone publish the data in a decent credible publication...otherwise we can just throw it into the dustbin."

~ ~ ~

As usual Donna doesn't give any details.

Is Pachauri supposed to know every paper by heart? Did Donna investigate to see if the said paper was included? No. But, she gives us one sentence, no actual context.

This sort of smoke'n mirrors that Donna weaves her melodramatic story of vilification.

"The authors will work on the basis of peer reviewed and internationally available literature, including manuscripts that can be made available for IPCC review and selected non-peer reviewed literature."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The outright claim (or the implicit suggestion) that every last bit of evidence considered by the IPCC has met the peer-reviewed threshold has been repeated far and wide. Journalists have had a hand in this. So have governments and scientists.

~ ~ ~

Donna read IPCC's guidelines, below is a link followed by the index.

Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC WorkPROCEDURES FOR THE PREPARATION, REVIEW, ACCEPTANCE, ADOPTION,APPROVAL AND PUBLICATION OF IPCC REPORTSAdopted at the Fifteenth Session (San Jose, 15- 18 April 1999) amended at the Twentieth Session(Paris, 19-21 February 2003), Twenty-first Session (Vienna, 3 and 6-7 November 2003), andTwenty-Ninth Session (Geneva, 31 August – 4 September 2008)

To repeat, no one really says the IPCC is perfect, errors have been made ~ But, that doesn't justify Donna's hysterical spoiled child tantrums against the IPCC.

Read through the actual IPCC pages, and find a professional approach that is seriously seeking to produce the best compendium of current climatological information available. For a more serious and objective review of IPCC errors and issues, there's this:

The Earth Negotiations Bulletin describes itself as a "a balanced, timely and independent reporting service" that tracks the twists and turns of UN climate talks. Over the years it has received funding from numerous countries including Australia, Canada, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the UK, and the United States. Between 2001 and 2010 this bulletin sounded a constant refrain. Again and again, as part of its boilerplate description, it told its readers that IPCC reports are based on "peer-reviewed scientific and technical literature."

~ ~ ~

It's not unusual for organization to use effusive rhetoric. But, please notice how Donna always looks at the superficial. The press release, a/q under fire and such. But, what matter is what they are actually doing, how they dealing with the real world.

Sadly Donna is just in this for a political battle, and not very interested in any details. Particularly if those details shine a good light on the scientists and functionaries making the IPCC process work.

The Earth Negotiations Bulletin is a balanced, timely and independent reporting service that provides daily information in print and electronic formats from multilateral negotiations on environment and development. It is published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), a non-profit organization based in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. The office of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin is based in New York City, two blocks from the United Nations.

The Bulletin is a one-page, two-sided "desktop" publication that is distributed each day to participants at UN negotiations related to environment and development.

In addition to the hard-copy version, the Earth Negotiations Bulletin is available in electronic format on IISD web site on the Internet and by electronic mail. At the conclusion of each meeting, the Earth Negotiations Bulletin Team writes and edits a 10-18,000-word summary and analysis of the meeting, which is circulated in electronic format. This has enabled it to reach a wide range of people interested in environment and development negotiations.

Many UN delegates, NGOs and UN staff who track environment and sustainable development policy consider the Earth Negotiations Bulletin to be essential reading. The Bulletin has received high praise from diplomats, UN staff, government officials, non-government organizations, the business community, media and the academic community for its objective and comprehensive presentation of the facts.

In the 12 years that IISD has published the Earth Negotiations Bulletin, electronic mail and the World Wide Web have changed the way that information is gathered and exchanged. During this period, the Earth Negotiations Bulletin staff has developed several derivative electronic products, using the information gathered in the production of the ENB. These new forms of computer-mediated communications and derivative products have expanded the readership of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin to an estimated 35,000 people worldwide.

ENB History

The Earth Negotiations Bulletin began as the joint initiative of three individuals from the NGO community, who were participating in the preparations for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. Johannah Bernstein, an environmental lawyer and Director of the Canadian Participatory Committee for UNCED (CPCU), Pamela Chasek, a doctoral student at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, and Langston James Goree VI "Kimo", a former UNDP programme officer and NGO activist from the Western Amazon, created the Earth Summit Bulletin in March 1992.

After publishing daily issues during the five weeks of the Fourth Preparatory Committee meeting for UNCED the three raised funds to publish at the Conference in Rio. Following the conclusion of UNCED the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) approached the three founders with an offer to continue publishing the Earth Summit Bulletin at follow-up negotiations to the Earth Summit. In November 1992 the Earth Summit Bulletin was renamed the Earth Negotiations Bulletin.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

For its part, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) celebrated the role its employees had played in the Nobel Prize-winning IPCC by devoting a page to that topic in an official publication. Its description of the IPCC makes a point of mentioning that it relies on "published peer-reviewed literature." A bit more of the commentary from that page sheds light on how our delinquent teenager {You know Donna this is really starting to sound pathetic and desperate, don't you ever get ashamed of yourself?}got to be quite so impressed with himself. According to this government publication:

The IPCC Assessments, internationally recognized as the premier source about climate change, are used by scientists and policy makers worldwide...The IPCC relies on world-class scientists from 113 governments to scour and evaluate the body of scientific literature on climate science.

Sounds great, doesn't it? Until you discover that world-class scientists include 20-something graduate students {shown to be bogus complaint}. Until you learn that the IPCC prevents expert reviewers from looking too closely at the science. {shown to be bogus complaint} (Incidentally, the NOAA publication proudly mentions one staff member in particular - Susan Solomon, the very person who threatened to expel Steve McIntyre because he'd asked for more information.)

~ ~ ~

Oh dear pumping up her melodrama touch stones again.

Actually, McIntyre was harassing them for information he should have looked for elsewhere. Steven has a track record of that along with other shenanigans:

Steve McIntyre is free to do any analysis he wants on any data he can find. But when he ladles his work with unjustified and false accusations of misconduct and deception, he demeans both himself and his contributions. The idea that scientists should be bullied into doing analyses McIntyre wants and delivering the results to him prior to publication out of fear of very public attacks on their integrity is ludicrous.

By rights we should be outraged and appalled that (yet again) unfounded claims of scientific misconduct and dishonesty are buzzing around the blogosphere, once again initiated by Steve McIntyre, and unfailingly and uncritically promoted by the usual supporters. However this has become such a common occurrence that we are no longer shocked nor surprised that misinformation based on nothing but prior assumptions gains an easy toehold on the contrarian blogs (especially at times when they are keen to ‘move on’ from more discomforting events).

So instead of outrage, we’ll settle for simply making a few observations that undermine the narrative that McIntyre and company are trying to put out . . . For the rest of the story, click

While journalists and bureaucrats may be prone to exaggeration, scientists are supposed to refrain from making declarative statements about matters beyond their firsthand knowledge. Nevertheless scientists themselves have actively promoted the peer-reviewed meme.

"One of the SEJ panelists [ed. note: Marc Morano] implored listeners to go to the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works web page to get information on climate change. Don't. Unlike the IPCC reports, this web page has not been produced by a rigorous IPCC-like process. It is not based entirely on peer-reviewed literature, but instead refers to press releases and blogs. And it has not been reviewed by independent scientists in ensure that it accurately reflects the peer-reviewed literature. In other words, it is not a credible representation of the science."

Well as I remember at that time Senator Inhofe had his hands all over that website. Considering what an extremist that man is, how can you blame Dessler for steering folks away from it? Here's little more detail, that will help put Dessler rejection into better context:

Some of the world's most prominent climate scientists offered a detailed rebuttal of Inhofe's main claims about climate science in a post at RealClimate.

Inhofe receives more campaign funding from the oil and gas sector than from any other source, receiving sums totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars over the past five years.

Inhofe has said: "You know, God's still up there. We're now going through a cooling spell. And the whole issue there was is it man-made gases, anthropogenic gases, CO2, methane. I don't think so."

The senator's staff handed out literature arguing against listing the polar bear as endangered which stated: "Mars has global warming despite absence of SUVs." He has also cited the fiction writer Michael Crichton to support his contention that the warming of the planet since 1850 has been due to natural causes.

In a 2006 interview Inhofe compared those on the "other side of the debate" to the Third Reich. In 1994 he compared the US government's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the Gestapo. When Rolling Stone magazine listed him at 7th in its feature on "the planet's worst enemies" he responded by saying: "I should have been no. 1."

Inhofe told CNN he believed the stolen emails from the CRU "pretty well debunked" climate science in December 2009. He appears to have misrepresented the views of the World Meteorological Organisation during a TV interview about the issue.

In 2008 physicist Joseph Romm, writing under a headline that promised The cold truth about climate change, told Salon.com readers that the IPCC "relies on the peer-reviewed scientific literature for its conclusions, which must meet the rigorous requirements of the scientific method..."

In 2009 Greenpeace-linked marine biologist Ove Hoegh-Guldberg described the IPCC process to a reporter as "always using the peer-reviewed literature as the base." Philip Duffy, a physicist with 20 years climate modeling experience, asserted in 2010 that a "core principle of the IPCC is that only peer-reviewed literature is cited."

~ ~ ~

Yup. And that is absolutely true, notice he did not say every shred of paper.

Donna is trying to set impossible expectations; she approaches the IPCC with palpable hostility.

In all this LaFramboise is trampling on our collective need to learn and understand what is going on.

Summary for Policymakers (SPM) or overview chapter and an optional technical summary.

Underlying reports are accepted by the Working Group responsible for preparing it.

Acceptance means that the text has not been subject to line-by-line discussions and agreement, but nevertheless represents a comprehensive, objective and balanced view of the subject matter."

{...}

"The authors will work on the basis of peer reviewed and internationally available literature, including manuscripts that can be made available for IPCC review and selected non-peer reviewed literature.

Source, quality and validity of non-peer reviewed literature, such as private sector information need to be critically assessed by the authors and copies will have to be made available to reviewers who request them.

Disparate views for which there is significant scientific or technical support should be clearly identified in IPCC reports, together with relevant arguments. Expert meetings and workshops may be used to support the preparation of a report."

~ ~ ~

The IPCC's guideline clearly state that it will review certain other categories of reports. So Donna can point to individual that over-stated - bad them.

But, the matter we need to think about is how that impacts the final reports. Donna's implication is that IPCC reports are inferior. So far we've seen innuendo, hearsay, melodrama, vilification, what-ifs, can-you-imagines, cops and vampires to build her case out of. She's revealed the IPCC isn't perfect - but she hasn't explained why that means we don't need and why we should trust the IPCC's reports.

Nor has she given the IPCC any sort of fair hearing, she won't even tell you about this:

"The authors will work on the basis of peer reviewed and internationally available literature, including manuscripts that can be made available for IPCC review and selected non-peer reviewed literature."

In other words, peer review has become both a shield (behind which the IPCC hides) and a sword (with which it skewers dissenting voices). Anyone who attempts to challenge IPCC findings is told to go read the peer-reviewed literature. Moreover, unless a criticism has been published in a peer-reviewed journal IPCC-affiliated scientists consider it beneath their notice.

~ ~ ~

This is ridiculous, the scientific work of serious contrarians has received a great deal of interdisciplinary attention. The Iris Effect; The Cosmic Rays; Heat Island Effect; Surface Temperature record's reliability; Spencer's satellite measurements; It's not CO2 and more. All of this has received extensive serious attention, including plenty of peer reviewed publication.

The contrarian claim that this stuff get's swept under the table is wrong - but that's because like creationists they ignore what they don't want to see and see all who disagree with them as conspirators.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In 2003 climatologist Michael Mann was asked to respond to concerns expressed in an article written by a former US Defense and Energy Secretary and published in a major newspaper. Much like Chairman Pachauri - who said that research that hadn't appeared in a journal was fit only for the dustbin - Mann haughtily replied: "I am not familiar with any peer-reviewed work that he has submitted to the scientific literature."

~ ~ ~

You know I tried tracking this down ran out of time and interest. Given Donna's one sided treatment there's no telling what this is actually about. Interesting though, these description are like those fuzzy Big Foot pictures... never know what to make of them.

~ ~ ~

But, speaking of the Department of Defense, here's what they have to said:

"In the post–Cold War era, the U.S. Navy has had a very limited surface ship presence in true northern latitude, cold-weather conditions. According to information presented to the committee, the U.S. military as a whole has lost most of its competence in cold-weather operations for high-Arctic warfare."

RECOMMENDATION 3.4 (page 84):

"For risk management purposes, U.S. naval leaders would be prudent to err on the side of overestimation of future sea-level rise when renovating existing or planning new coastal facilities. The Navy and other branches of U.S. services that have historic commitments to HA/DR efforts for the United States and beyond need to consider as highly probable the need to enhance these capabilities to be prepared for increased damage from coastal storms."

RECOMMENDATION 6.2 (page 119):

"The Chief of Naval Research, the Oceanographer of the Navy, and the Commander, Naval Meteorology and Oceanography Command, should consider findings by the MEDEA Program (and take lessons from MEDEA actions within the intelligence community) to develop and support a Navy philosophy for providing access to previously classified information that can be used by the climate research community.

Such actions would enhance the potential of these researchers to help the Navy better prepare for its mission in a future with a warmer climate."

Acronyms: humanitarian assistance/disaster relief (HA/DR)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In 2011, the following tagline appeared beneath an opinion piece published in an Australian newspaper: Cathy Foley is president of Science & Technology Australia, Australia's peak body for science and technology. She has had 82 refereed papers published in international journals.

In that opinion piece Foley declared that a climate skeptic then on a speaking tour in her country would lack credibility "until he is willing to subject his views to the rigorous peer review process." He shouldn't be listened to, she said, because he:

has never published a single peer-reviewed paper on any scientific topic in his life... The challenge for him is to test his ideas by submitting of years providing the community with information that it can trust.

~ ~ ~

Donna, What's wrong with that?

Here is an excellent example of the double standard. We are talking about one Lord Monckton here. Interestingly, beloved by Republicans and FreeMarket UN-hating groups throughout the world. No one seems to matter that Monckton has been caught telling more lies than is possible to track at this point.

Donna are you actually defending Lord Monckton as a person people should listen to? It's one thing to defend Monckton's right to spew utter lies and ad hominem emotionalizing and entertainment from beginning to end - But to say he deserves the same weight as a serious researcher in incredible and revealing.

Time for Lord Monckton to really test his ideas

Cathy Foley | Opinion | July 19, 2011

{Here's a snippet from the middle:}

The truth is, Monckton's ideas have been repeatedly shot down by climate scientists as fabrications, misrepresentations and, at times, sheer nonsense.

Since Al Gore hasn't published any peer-reviewed papers, either, it would be interesting to know whether Foley has similarly declared his credibility to be nil during his speaking tours. Having evidently missed the editor of The Lancet's remarks about how peer review fails to detect research misconduct, she ended her piece by urging Australians to "respect the peer-reviewed science."

~ ~ ~

Oh boy, just for good measure we're going to get in some Gore bashing.

Gore was a politician who tried to explain the science to the people, he could have done a better job. But Gore was never "the science" something contrarians seem to find difficult to grasp.

Donna your need to constantly smear people is indicative of the hollowness of your arguments.

RECOMMENDED WEBSITES

{edited 12/11/2014}

I know there are too many typos, what can I say, eyes aren't what they were, I get rushed, and always did have a thing with transposing…{well, I also hated high school "english" classes... bad call that one.}. Doing the best I can with what I got. Embarrassing though it is, it's better than doing nothing. Besides, it's the issues and reasoning that we should be worrying about.

Though I'm in my own little world here, I'm also constantly learning and evolving and do get occasional feedback and when I reread stuff and find errors or omissions or garbage, I fix it. If it's major I'll acknowledge it with an 'edited' note, minor stuff I don't bother.

~ ~ ~

I hardly keep track of Anthony's latest antics (besides, with Sou on the job why bother - can't beat her insights). It's just me over here and I have more important things to do with my precious hours - still now that Anthony's luster has been wearing thin he's put his energy into discovering and honing new fresh faces to carry on the public show of the Republican/Libertarian strategic attack on science.

He seems to have transitioned into a ring-leader, perhaps mentor/coach would be better, producer? At least that's how Mr. Steele and his antics of the past year has gotten me to think about it. So in that regard this blog remains about WUWT's brand of thinking and logic and my struggle to understand the anatomy of the fraud they've perpetrated against mankind. {December 2014}

_____________________________

ok, now some recommended websites:

This blog was started in April 2013 and is written by an actual scientist so it has a refreshingly serious objective air to it, plus he does a good clear job of explaining complex issues.

Tamino, an acknowledged statistical/mathematical expert of the highest order, at Open Mind also does an excellent job of holding Anthony’s feet to the fire with clearly explained facts and math. Check it out:http://tamino.wordpress.com~ ~ ~

And of course, there is the excellent, most up to date internet depository of climate studies and information for the non-expert public.

Then there's RealClimate.org the scientist's commentary site. Run by working climate scientists intended to help the interested public and journalists sort through the complexities of the climatology. They provide "quick response to developing stories and provide the context" that is too often missing from public media's depiction. {But, you better be serious and have some real science education/understanding under your belt if you want to keep up.}

I remember back in da day, good websites/blogs were few and far between. But over the past years that's been changing to the point that it's impossible to keep up with them all. Here's an incomplete, and long overdue addition to my above list: